Standing Committee A

[Mrs. Irene Adams in the Chair]

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. I suggested earlier that there was a slight problem with the Hansard report, which had arrived rather late. For the record, I have asked Hansard to amend something. The report reads:
 ``Here is a branded packet of cigarettes''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 February 2001; c. 154.] 
I did not have a packet of branded cigarettes. I had a bottle of water in my hand and was saying that its brand name was also the brand of a certain cigarette. Since that is likely to become illegal, we need to see the regulations.

Irene Adams: That is not a point of order, but I am sure that it is very helpful. Clause 15 Penalties

Clause 15 - Penalties

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Peter Luff: We were talking about vacuums, as far as I recall, when we were interrupted at 11.25 am, and we were exploring the important question of the penalties that exist to ensure that the Act is complied with and is not simply treated as an operational cost.
 I am sure the reputable manufacturers—the British American Tobaccos, Imperial Tobaccos, Philip Morris's and so on—will not wish to appear before the courts of England and Wales, or anywhere else, to be charged with breaking the law blatantly. My concern is that, as they will no longer be able to advertise their products, it will be easier for other brands to start taking market share away from them. 
 I do not know whether the figures that I have are correct; they come from the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, which, in a brief that I believe every member of the Committee has received, said that 7 per cent. of smokers switch brands each year. Some 26 per cent. smoke more than one brand, so the market for brand switches is massive—around £3 billion, including advertising.. If new, less scrupulous, manufacturers appear in the market place, there will be a huge opportunity for them. If they are prepared to break the law and run the risk of the inadequate penalties in clause 15, we will have a real problem. 
 In its brief, the TMA says, and I think that it has a point: 
 ``The UK tobacco market has traditionally been dominated by premium priced brands.'' 
It claims: 
 ``Advertising enables those premium brands to maintain consumer loyalty. In the absence of advertising, competition can only be in respect of distribution and price.'' 
It is wrong on that point. Cheaper companies may be prepared to flout the law if they feel that the price is high enough. 
 I invite the Minister to reflect on whether the catch-all penalty for the High street tobacconist might not prove tempting to reasonably large to medium-size businesses, which may be tempted into the UK market to attract brand share away from the established brands, which have traditionally maintained their position by advertising, and secured a higher price in the process. I am anxious that we should explore that point positively, and hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.

Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend had a chance, as I have over lunchtime, to read the Food Standards Act 1999, which, we were told, complies almost word for word with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill? If so, has he noticed that the wording is in fact completely different and the two documents act in completely different ways? It is strange that we are rushing through the penalties in clause 15, having been told by a Minister of the Crown that we are simply following the normal mode, when that is not in fact the case.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have not read the Act, but I am aware that there are different provisions in different Acts. It is rare for Acts to match perfectly. I am not in the slightest surprised to hear that there are differences between that Act and the Bill.
 I should not exactly declare an interest before I sit down, but should say that many years ago, in an incarnation of which I am not especially proud, I advised a tobacco company. I know that those companies are capable of being very ingenious in seeking to exploit any loopholes. I can see all kinds of opportunities for major companies to operate some subsidiary that might decide to breach the law in some way. 
 The Government must be clear that the penalties are adequate. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) made his point powerfully in his short speech, and I look forward to some reassurance from the Minister.

Yvette Cooper: The clause sets out the penalties for the offences in the Act. The penalty for obstructing an enforcement officer is a fine of up to £1,000. Other offences would attract penalties of up to £5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three months.
 Hon. Members have made two different kinds of point. First, it has been suggested that that penalty would be too harsh for the small shopkeeper or for someone in difficult circumstances. The clause sets out maximum penalties, and the courts will, rightly, take account of individual circumstances. It would be a mistake to try to set out in the Bill what those detailed different circumstances may be. It is precisely the job of the court to take account of the individual situations of particular people who are being prosecuted for offences under the Act. That is the right approach. 
 I have also heard hon. Members' concern that the penalties may be too light for certain perpetrators, companies and individuals who choose to flout the law many times. I am sympathetic to the point that major tobacco companies are wealthy institutions with a huge amount of money. It is important to include the prospect of three months in prison in the Bill, and that will be an important deterrent. It is also important that this Bill should be in line with other aspects of the criminal law, but I will consider the points that have been made about the nature of the offences.

Peter Luff: One way forward might be a different penalty for a second or subsequent offence?

Yvette Cooper: I am sure that the Bill needs a means of dealing with repeat or subsequent offences or abuses the law. I want to ensure that that is the case.

Ian Bruce: On a similar but slightly different point, my lady wife is a magistrate, and she has kindly shown me how magistrates are advised by the Lord Chancellor's Department about whether they should impose a maximum sentence for differing offences. Am I right to say that it is unusual for a magistrates court to jail anyone for a first offence, because of the guidelines that they receive from the Lord Chancellor's Department? If that is so, and that is known to someone who is chancing their arm, that person may think, ``Well, on my first offence and second offence, there is no chance of my getting three months, and my fines for the first and second offences are likely to be graduated fines.''

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, the courts would regard a matter as serious if it was a second or a repeat offence. It would not be surprising if the courts did that. I have made clear my intention to consider the points that have been made and to ensure that the Bill is in line with other aspects of the criminal law. We are doing everything within reason to provide the proper deterrents.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Offences by bodies corporate and scottish partnerships

Irene Adams: The question is that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Caroline Spelman: We have spent quite a bit of the break between the sittings of the Committee having a closer look at the Food Standards Act 1999.

Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, given that the Opposition are seeking to toughen up the Bill, that Labour members are so anxious to get it through that they are calling Divisions before we have even discussed the clause?

Caroline Spelman: I am afraid I have turned a deaf ear to what is going on. It has been attempted before. Things must be given their proper time and it would be a dereliction of duty if we did not stop to look at what has been placed in the clause.
 The more I have read the misleading assurance given in the explanatory notes that the enforcement provisions mirror what is in the Food Standards Act 1999, the more disquieted I have become. There are many differences between the two pieces of legislation, and I wish that I had not taken on trust what the explanatory notes said on the parallels between them. 
 Clause 16 deals with the officers of a body corporate. I seek an assurance from the Minister that an officer of a body corporate who is unaware of a tobacco advertisement displayed or produced by an employee of his company will not be liable to prosecution for the neglect referred to in clause 16(1)(b). It would be unfair if the production or display of a tobacco advertisement by an employee of a company made the managing director of that company guilty of an offence, even though he was unaware of the advertisement. If I read the Bill correctly, there is no defence for officers of bodies corporate who did not know, or had no reason to suspect, that the purpose of the advertisement was to promote tobacco, that its effect would be to promote a tobacco product, or that the advertisement would be published in the UK. Such a defence exists for those guilty of an offence under clauses 2 or 3. 
 Will the Minister make clear whether I have misread the Bill on that point? A number of exceptions are given. It is the style of the Bill to list the offences and then the defences, but there is not always an exact parallel between them. We have already discussed one amendment that would ensure that groups are not unwittingly left out of the series of defences that are proffered. I seek assurances for the officers of bodies corporate.

Peter Luff: I am sure that it is due to my ignorance, but I want to get a couple of detailed points on the record. [Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.''] I am grateful for that endorsement from Labour Members. I am not quite sure where it came from; I will not point the finger of blame.
 I want to deal with the question of plurality and singularity. Clause 16(1)(a) states: 
 ``If an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved— 
 (a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer.'' 
What happens if more than one officer is proved to have been involved in the process? Can the authorities proceed against more than one officer, or should clause 16 be amended to ``an officer or officers''? I should be grateful for clarification. Does the clause allow more than one individual to be prosecuted if they are seen to be to blame? In the case of advertising, the body in question may not be just the company; it may be an advertising agency, or the organisation that carried the advertisement. So I imagine that proceedings could be taken against more than one body corporate. 
 The Bill makes specific provisions for partnerships in Scotland, but makes no mention of partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It may just be that I am ignorant of company law, but does that mean that the definitions included in clause 16 extend to partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Ian Bruce: I wish to make a similar point about the definition of exactly who is liable. I was told by my accountant when I first set up a limited company that the company secretary was the person who ended up going to jail. That is why, within any companies in which I have been the main person, my wife is always the company secretary. She would get more sympathy from the courts than perhaps I would. It is important when considering who should be going to prison that we know what the Minister intends.
 My other point is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about prosecuting more than one person. There was a tragic case in which a child had been beaten to death. The child could only have been beaten to death by the father or the mother, each of whom accused the other. The courts could not decide who was responsible. Clearly, they were both irresponsible in that they did not stop it happening, but both of them got off. A director of a company could have authorised various people to carry out advertising activities. We have to find the person who gave the order. I am concerned that each director in turn could say, ``No, it was not me, it was the other director.'' [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) like to intervene?

Ernie Ross: It is rather strange that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen want to increase the defences and the Back-Bench Members seem to want to close down the defences. I am not quite sure how they are working together on this one.

Ian Bruce: I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman has had a good lunch because I can see that he is very attentive, but he clearly was not listening to what I was saying. We want to ensure that, having decided that one wants to go after a particular director or manager under the clause—after all, we are here to examine the detailed working of such clauses—a defence would not arise from the wording of the clause whereby people could simply say, ``We know that someone within this company has authorised the advertisement, but you can't get us because we will keep accusing each other of it.'' One needs to know that if a body corporate has been guilty of doing something, someone will be sent to prison. A company cannot be sent to prison; a person has to be sent to prison. Therefore, determining how a person is identified is a very important issue for the Committee, and I hope that all my colleagues agree with that.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) seemed to be suggesting that I was misleading the Committee. I hope that she was not suggesting that.

Caroline Spelman: The wording of the explanatory notes is misleading. They say:
 ``Such powers are standard powers for enforcement officers (see for example similar provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Food Standards Act 1999).'' 
Such parallels are absent in the section on penalties. The previous legislation includes a penalty for an enforcement officer who discloses to any person information obtained on the premises with regard to any trade secret. There is no parallel in this Bill, yet there is an equal risk. That is just one example of where standard features of other Bills are supposed to be mirrored in this Bill, but are not.

Yvette Cooper: The explanatory notes have never stated, and nor have I said in the course of our debates today, that the provisions were identical. We are talking about different pieces of legislation. Certainly, the important powers have been modelled on the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and some elements of the Bill are modelled on the Food Standards Act 1999. It is perhaps a rather tight and not a reasonable interpretation of the explanatory notes to say that, just because there are differences between the Bill and those other Acts, the explanatory notes are inaccurate.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked whether more than one officer could be prosecuted. Yes, more than one officer can be prosecuted under the Bill, and they have the same defences as apply in earlier clauses— that they were unaware, were not able to foresee or were not able reasonably to suspect. They have the same defences—if they were unaware, were not able to foresee or were not able reasonably to suspect—identified in earlier clauses on defences. 
 Partnership in England is not a body corporate. Scottish partnerships are the equivalent of the body corporate in England. The clause provides that an officer of a company can be personally liable, as well as the company itself being liable, where his or her actions were instrumental, for reasons of, say, neglect or connivance, in committing the offence. That is why the parallel provisions apply to Scotland.

Peter Luff: The Minister said that so rapidly that I may have misunderstood or not heard what the Minister said. I asked about partnerships in the United Kingdom being taken to court. Could a firm of family solicitors, for example, who were instrumental in placing an advertisement, be prosecuted as a partnership, and who would be prosecuted? Would it be the senior partner?

Yvette Cooper: My understanding is that partnerships are not covered as a body corporate by clause 16. Therefore, the issue relating to officers who are part of the body corporate would not apply in the same way.

Ian Bruce: I understand that the Minister is saying that a partnership in England effectively counts as unlimited liability. The individuals are the individuals. Can the Minister address my point that if no particular officer is identified in a company as the person who gave the order, and if it is therefore the company that is seen as guilty, who will be the designated fall guy or girl who ends up going to prison?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member's point about partnership, as I understand it, is that there is individual liability in partnerships. On the question of which officer might be liable, the clause means that an officer can be personally liable if his or her actions were instrumental. Under those circumstances, the individual would be liable.

Ian Bruce: We are not debating the same point. When a court finds that a company has transgressed, whom does it imprison for three months? The courts cannot imprison the company or the company logo. If a person has not been identified as an individual within the body corporate, who is liable? Is it the company secretary, or some other officer?

Yvette Cooper: I am informed that that will depend on the facts of the case. I will clarify that issue and get back to the hon. Gentleman.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Regulations

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 9, line 13, at end insert—
 `( ) No statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Displays) is to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, or laid before the Scottish Parliament and approved by a resolution of that Parliament.'.

Irene Adams: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 3—Displays.

Yvette Cooper: New clause 3 refers to the debate on the difference between advertisements and displays. To ensure full clarity, we tabled a brief amendment earlier and said that we would also table a new clause.
 As stated in an earlier clause, we want to allow advertising at the point of sale. Where products are for sale, advertising will be permitted. The regulations will specify what kind of advertising will be acceptable. During the debate it became clear that there might be a lack of clarity about what would happen when, even if advertising were constrained within the regulations, companies or organisations tried to find a way around that by displaying their products around a shop in a way that might be construed as an advertisement, but where the clear purpose was to promote the tobacco product. Companies might try to argue that they were not advertising their product, simply displaying it for sale. That might be a source of concern, and it requires clarification. 
 We have no problem with the way in which products are currently displayed for sale and no intention of restricting ordinary displays to behind a gantry or to the usual displays in duty free shops. Our intention is not to prevent the broad status quo. We are, however, concerned that companies might find loopholes that would allow them to display their products to promote tobacco, contrary to the Bill. For example, they might scatter cigarettes among children's toys or extend a display of cigarettes to fill a shop window. 
 We would prefer not to set out regulations and not to use the regulatory power. If a display is used for an advertisement—for example, Marlboro cigarettes stacked in the shape of a big M, as in the Marlboro sign—the Bill's powers for prosecuting advertisements may be invoked. The regulations in the new clause will provide some back-up to prevent future abuse of displays. It is not our intention to regulate at this stage; should we need to in future, we would not set out to constrain or regulate the broad forms of display typically used today in corner shops or other places where tobacco products are for sale.

Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to hear the Minister's relaxed attitude towards current displays. People who are worried that a legitimate aspect of their current business might fall foul of the Bill will welcome that. I share the Minister's concern about loopholes that would allow tobacco products to be displayed together with toys. It is in everyone's interest to prevent that. We probed the Minister earlier on what constituted an advertisement as opposed to a display. Both the amendment and the new clause are helpful in clarifying that. People affected by the Bill will read those provisions carefully, but the detailed regulations will provide more specific guidance, so I am glad that they will be subject to positive resolution.
 The Minister's relaxed attitude suggests that she views the regulations as a reserve power to deal with an abuse of what is permitted rather than as a proactive measure to be invoked as soon as the law comes into force, requiring retail outlets to adapt their existing practices to conform to it. 
 Let me return to display and advertisement. Given that a more explicit explanation is to be given to the term ``display'', might the Minister, on reflection, consider providing a closer definition of ``advertisement''? I think that it is possible to provide guidance to businesses in that respect. 
 I wish to ask the Minister some questions about the publication of draft regulations for consultation. I believe that a promise has been made several times that draft regulations for consultation would be forthcoming on point-of-sale and advertising displays. The Government said, first in relation to their intention to produce primary legislation and later as part of their plans to implement the now-annulled European directive, that they would produce regulations for consultation. Those encouraging noises have been made to the industry for almost four years. 
 It would have been helpful if the consultation and drafting of the regulations had taken place before we debated the Bill. I am struck by the way in which we seem to do things the wrong way round. We agree the legislative framework in an empty-box structure and are promised regulations in due course and consultation either simultaneously or some time later. I should have thought that consulting first and producing draft regulations would have been helpful ways round the question of displays. 
 My final point is that the Minister said that there may or may not be regulations, which provide for the meaning of ``place''. We had a problem when we debated a previous clause with the description of a specialist tobacconist as a shop. We debated how that might constrain the effectiveness of the Bill, since not all specialist tobacconists have shops. I would be interested if the Minister would tighten up the definition and say specifically what she means by ``place''. 
 We are defining some things precisely while leaving others open. It will be important to retailers to know specifically what ``place'' means and how they need to adapt present practices to the new definitions in forthcoming regulations. Clarification of the word ``display'' has proved helpful because the absence of a clear definition would lay us open to a situation in which a retailer might feel, in the absence of a display, that the safest thing to do would be to put all his products under the counter. I know that some people take the view that that would be a good thing because it would remove temptation from people's way, but one problem of removing the products in such a draconian way is that it drives sales under cover. 
 We already have a significant problem in the UK with a high proportion of illegally imported tobacco, sold not under the counter, but clandestinely from the back of a white van. We must be clear that it will be legitimate to put tobacco products on view where the trade is carried out in compliance with the Bill. That is an important distinction to make. The Bill is likely to be counter-productive without the clarification that the Minister says will be forthcoming in regulations. It is desirable for the myriad retail outlets for tobacco products to be quite clear about how much of the product they can put on view. 
 At present, displays containing a significant number of packets are usually behind the till, in view. I hope that I understand correctly from the Minister that she is relaxed about those displays. The effect of altering the present displays would undoubtedly be to draw attention to the changes in the law, but placing the products under the counter would have an undesirable impact. As far as possible, we want to ensure that legitimate trade in tobacco products is allowed, notwithstanding their public health risk. It is desirable to encourage people to keep their habit within the law. 
 The consumption of illegal tobacco represents 25 per cent. of all tobacco consumption, and the figure is almost as high as 50 per cent. in the north-east. We are fighting a losing battle; people are increasingly tempted to go for the under-the-counter products or products out of a white van rather than legitimate ones. Clarification of what is a display is essential to supporting the legitimate business of retailing tobacco products. I hope that the new clause and the regulations will be helpful in that respect.

Ian Bruce: Let me deal with one of the elements of display and how that might affect the way in which people retail tobacco. I would like the Minister's comments on a specific practice that could be extended. In duty free shops, tobacco shops and clothing shops, it is quite normal that when one purchases a large quantity of a product, one is given a carrier bag with a logo on it. It seems to me that if the carrier bag has advertising on it, it is a very effective way of giving out something at point of sale that will end up as an advertisement trailed along the high street by people going about their business. Will the Minister consider that? The same applies, of course, to a lot of other branded goods.
 Something that is purchased that has a logo on it—within a tobacco-selling area that complies with the regulations, which we have not yet seen, about how tobacco products should be displayed— and is then taken from that place becomes a moving advertisement. I have here a copy of the House of Commons logo. The portcullis is the logo that appears on House of Commons branded cigarettes. We have other branded products, including mineral water and a teddy bear. The brand is the same as on our branded cigarettes. 
 We understand how the sale of such branded products might be affected by the provisions on point of sale. A product with a Silk Cut or Marlboro brand could be on sale within a tobacconist's shop, where it might well be legal to sell it because it is not being advertised outside the shop. Once it is in the hands of the individual who buys it, the branded product is not caught. 
 The other element in new clause 3 to which I wanted to refer is the use of the words ``on a website''. We all have to try and get our heads around something that exists in the virtual world. Several Acts, including the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Telecommunications (Fraud) Act 1997, have attempted to define in law something that exists as electrons, but not as something that a person can pick up and walk away with. In the past, a person could not steal or alter those electrons without their being defined as real things. 
 I have a problem with the way in which the Minister uses the phrase ``on a website''. New clause 3 says: 
 ``A person who in the course of a business displays tobacco products or causes them to be displayed...on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale is guilty of an offence'' 
 unless he complies with the regulations. Under certain regulations, it is legal to have such products on the website. Let us assume that we can say that the website exists. It does not exist where a person is looking at and is affected by the advertisement. It may be legal for the website to exist, but not for it to be on a computer in someone's home or office. It is difficult, but one is attempting to regulate the advertisement at the point at which it is read, as opposed to in a virtual world. 
 I have given an example of the situation that might arise, particularly in relation to an overseas operator but also with a UK operator, unless the regulations are tightly drawn. Advertisements appear on screens at airports and various places. One could walk into an airport where advertisements were being clicked over in electronic form. If they have come from a website as opposed to a computer sitting underneath the machine, they could be legal and get round all the regulations that the Minister proposes to introduce. 
 We have established that people can have access to such information where they buy cigarettes. However, the Bill says that if people are not in a place where they can buy cigarettes, they should not be able to see advertisements for them. Advertisements should not be fired at them. If the information on a screen at a supermarket, airport or wherever comes from a website and tells people how they can purchase the cigarettes and how much they cost, and if cigarettes can be purchased from the website, the regulations designed to prevent that from happening outside a tobacco-selling environment will have been overcome.

Peter Luff: Is not the point that the Government should at least define what they mean by ``website''? Would a display that had been developed in Internet Explorer software but was not accessed from a remote computer count as a website? I am not aware of occasions in law when the term ``website'' has been used and defined, but perhaps the Government are. To use it in an undefined way leaves a number of loopholes in the legislation, which my hon. Friend is helpfully illuminating.

Ian Bruce: That is the problem. The definition is not even as simple as the one that I gave of a website existing in a single place, because in general they do not. When we see a page on a screen, we are often seeing information that is sent from a number of different sources and, indeed, things called cookies, which live on our computers, are all part and parcel of the image that one sees on the screen. The telecommunications companies would say that when someone asks for a web page and it has started to download, it is not necessarily transmitted in a direct line in only one direction from the web site to the computer. That is why it is called the world wide web. It sends a packet of information, perhaps from the top left-hand corner, via one route and the next packet of information says, ``Oh, it is a bit crowded around here, but there is another route over there''—and off it shoots.
 The concept of something being delivered via a web site is, legalistically, difficult to tie down. If I were advising the Minister, and were paid the sort of money earned by parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants, I would say—

Peter Luff: It is not enough.

Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend intends to be a Minister in a few months' time: I know that I will not be, but I may be being too flippant.
 If the Minister wants to stop people reading advertisements in a non-tobacco-selling environment, I must advise her that the new clause will not achieve that objective. I shall receive no fees for that advice, but when the draftsmen come to frame the regulations, they might well tackle the problem. The Bill provides certain powers, but the Minister has not defined them to my satisfaction. 
 Website is not in my dictionary—only a modern one would define it—but the term ``internet service provider'' has been used, and we have heard about the internet service providers who will, a week on Wednesday, see the Minister and her officials to ask, ``Will you please view us not as a publisher, but the conveyor of web information?''

Peter Luff: A week on Wednesday?

Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is surprised that that advice will reach the Government after the House of Commons has finished dealing with these issues.
 Will the Minister explain how this part of the Bill will operate? At this late stage in our proceedings, has she produced draft regulations to pass to members of the Committee so we can all feel happier about what she is trying to do?

Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members have raised various points about new clause 3, some of which were discussed earlier in our parallel debate about point-of-sale advertising. The hon. Member for Meriden asked when the regulations on such advertising would be published. We intend to produce draft regulations for consultation as soon as possible—hopefully during the Bill's passage, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading.
 As to regulations under clause 17, I explained earlier that we do not envisage drawing up draft regulations at this stage, and we may not use them. The hon. Lady was right to refer to the regulations as a reserve or back-up power. The implication for the calculation of individual repayments is that, until such regulations are introduced, a display that is not an advertisement is not an offence. 
 The issue of the word ``place'' has been raised. New clause 3 allows it to be defined in regulations, in the same way as point-of-sale advertising. We have already debated the meaning of ``website'' in that context. The Government intend that the point of sale should refer to the point at which the cigarettes or tobacco products are bought. A tangentially linked website at which the links were in place would not count as a point of sale in that respect, so the point-of-sale advertising or exemption for advertising in those circumstances would not apply as a defence. 
 This matter will be dealt with further in regulations and set out for consultation when the regulations on advertising, as opposed to regulations on display, are drafted.

Ian Bruce: An interesting thing has happened in America. California, and most states, have decided that goods and services ordered over the internet should not have sales tax attached to them in order to give a boost to the internet. If a person wants to book into an hotel in those states, other than via the internet, he or she can go into the hotel lobby to use a terminal through which guests can communicate with the front desk and book a room. The hotel confirms the reservation, and the guest has avoided the sales tax. The point is that we will see 80 ft by 60 ft screens advertising tobacco, and a man at the bottom of them who will sell tobacco. People will be able to press a button on screen to order cigarettes, which will be immediately available.
 The Government are effectively saying to the tobacco industry, ``It is all right, we are not actually going to have any regulations; it will take us quite a long time''. We can see the sort of thing that might happen.

Yvette Cooper: If he remembers rightly, the hon. Member for South Dorset will recall that I mentioned the example of a massive computer screen that people were driving past. As I pointed out to him then, the people who owned the computer screen and were distributing the advert would be caught by the Bill. That would be an advertisement, and would therefore be covered. It is exactly in order to prevent advertising at the point of sale from becoming an abuse and a way to get around the intentions of the Bill that we have included a power to regulate the kinds of advertising that are acceptable, at point of sale, through regulations. If we had not done so, we would not need to make regulations. If we thought that there were no problems in that area, we would simply set out an exemption. What we have set out instead is a power to regulate the exemption.

Caroline Spelman: This is an important practical discussion. I want to be perfectly clear about it. There is a very real risk because of the difference in excise duty. One might go to a specialist tobacconist or a newsagent that was a retailer of tobacco products. If it had installed a computer terminal that was connected to the internet and was able to access, via its website, a business that was not carried on in the UK and that displayed half-price cigarettes, and if its customers used that terminal, the tobacconist or newsagent might be liable for prosecution.
 Someone sitting at home who called up on his or her personal computer the same website for a business not carried out in this country but which supplied half-price cigarettes—

Irene Adams: Order. That is rather a long intervention.

Caroline Spelman: I am trying to get a straight answer. Is it the case that one of the actions that I have described would be illegal and the other would not?

Yvette Cooper: The questions for the courts would be, first, whether the advertisement was not at the point of sale, along the lines that we discussed earlier on the huge computer screen broadcasting an advert for people driving past in their cars, and, secondly, whether the advertising complied with the point-of-sale regulations. We are not saying that all advertising at all points of sale is permitted and acceptable. We are saying that advertising at point of sale must be subject to regulations, which will be put out to consultation.
 As I said previously, we have a relaxed attitude to the kind of displays currently at point of sale. We have introduced an exemption to the overall comprehensive ban on tobacco, because it is acceptable for companies selling a legal product to be able to advertise the prices and range of wares in that context. However, if that becomes an abuse and a way of getting around the tobacco advertising ban—whether by using massive computer screens or other means to play the part of a tobacco advertisement—we would use regulations to make sure that it did not become a loophole. That is why we have set out the need for such a power in regulations. 
 I want to touch on the point made by the hon. Member for South Dorset about walking around with a plastic bag with a Silk Cut logo on it. An individual walking around with a plastic bag, umbrella or whatever it happens to be would not be caught by the Bill, as long as he or she was not operating in the course of a business. However, if the plastic bag was clearly an ad for Silk Cut or other cigarettes, it would be caught. The production of that ad would be caught by the Bill, and the distribution of that ad in the course of a business is also covered by the Bill. If, rather than its being an ad for Silk Cut, the producers claim that it is simply a Silk Cut branded bag, they would be covered by the brandsharing provisions. Production and distribution would be covered by the Bill, but an individual walking around with a product that he purchased several years before would not.

Ian Bruce: I think that I am right to say that an advertisement that is intended to go between the wholesaler or manufacturer and the retailer is not caught by the Bill. Therefore, somebody who sends lots of packets of cigarettes with a carrier bag to the retail outlet would not be caught by the Bill. As there are no regulations prohibiting carrier bags in retail outlets—unless the regulations should be so amended—giving away a carrier bag, especially if a customer asks for it, would not be an offence. As the Minister said, an individual walking out with a carrier bag and wandering around town with it would not be committing an offence. I would be grateful for clarification.

Yvette Cooper: As soon as the retailer sells or gives away the bag, it is distributing a product. If the product was exempted because it was clearly needed in the tobacco trade, there would be a defence under the Bill while the product remains within the trade. However, if it is a product to be sold rather than a communication between members of the tobacco trade, it would be covered by the Bill. Why would a wholesaler send a retailer lots of branded plastic bags in the course of communications within the tobacco trade? The role of the wholesaler is arguable anyway, but as soon as the retailer sells the bag and distributes it, it becomes a tobacco advertisement or a branded good, and will be caught by the brandsharing provisions.

Ian Bruce: The Minister is forgetting what she said previously. Her view, which is not mine, was that the packaging around a packet of cigarettes is not an advertisement for the tobacco product inside. If the carrier bag is fully branded, we all agree that the branding, which does not even have information about tobacco on it, is intended to promote a tobacco product, and is therefore an advertisement. It is not covered by the Bill or the clause, as the hon. Lady seems to be saying.

Yvette Cooper: If that the defence that the hon. Gentleman wants to run in the courts if prosecuted under the Bill, I wish him luck. The argument that a carrier bag is to be considered as part of the packet for the cigarette—and is therefore not to be regarded, either as an advertisement for the product, or alternatively as a branded good—might prove somewhat tenuous in the courts. That is clearly not the intention of the Bill.
 New clause 3 sets out the issues around display, as opposed to point of sale advertising, which we have discussed in some detail. Amendment No. 14 is a consequential amendment, and deals with the process for discussing the regulations through the affirmative procedure, should they be required.

Ian Bruce: I started off with some concerns about new clause 3. Having heard the Minister's response, my concerns have merely increased. The new clause, which we first saw yesterday evening—or earlier if we were more attentive—does not cover what we thought the Minister was going to attempt to cover.
 I went a demonstration of digital radio yesterday evening. Digital radio provides a facility not only for normal music but for digital information to be supplied on a screen. Tobacco advertising from overseas could be provided in that way. We already have digital television in this country—indeed, the UK is the leader in digital television. Digital television has many interactive features. Under the voluntary bans, and under all sorts of codes, we cannot have television advertising of tobacco products. Despite that fact, I could design today a facility that tobacco companies could use to have their websites accessed and displayed on digital television. People already have such facilities on their televisions. The Minister, in trying to rush the Bill through by 5 pm, is not listening to the Opposition's advice. 
 Although new clause 3 is obviously designed to improve the Bill in terms of possible abuses, it is not enough for the Minister to say to the tobacco companies, ``Well, don't worry chaps, we're not actually going to think of having regulations until we might see an abuse.'' When the abuse comes along, it will take a considerable amount of time to deal with it. Some employment agency regulations in which I have an interest have taken two years to arrive since the original legislation was enacted. 
 The Prime Minister says that we should have at least three months to consult on statutory instruments, and then the Government have to find time for them in this place. We are, in effect, saying to the industry, ``Come and try us: there are all sorts of loopholes.'' The Minister needs to address those points. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9, line 16, after first `Parliament', insert
`with respect to England, Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Irene Adams: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 43, in page 9, line 16, after second `Parliament', insert `with respect to Scotland'.

Caroline Spelman: The two small amendments are designed to help to clarify the implications for the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. As drafted, two aspects of the clause lead to confusion. Clause 17(4) does not make it clear that the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments have specific jurisdiction. The implication is that either Parliament can give effect to an annulment. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Of course, we accept that, as a result of devolution, Parliaments may take decisions that lead to a completely different course of action. We have seen that in relation to the provision of free personal care. We have always said that that was a logical consequence of devolution. Subsection (4) says:
``this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament.''
 That would permit one or other of those Parliaments to take unilateral action. That would rather weaken the effectiveness of the Bill. 
 For argument's sake let us assume that the Scottish Parliament, for reasons best known to itself, decided on the course of annulment. We know that the prevalence of smoking in parts of Scotland is very high, and we share the Government's aim of trying to help in those communities where there is a high incidence of smoking. So we would not wish annulment to happen. We were seeking by our amendments to clarify this, if there is any confusion, and to be constructive.

Yvette Cooper: I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments. Not being a lawyer myself, I think that it is important to provide clarity. Having read the amendments and re-read the clause, I have asked for reassurance, more than once, that what the hon. Lady has described as the purpose behind her amendment is provided for by the Bill. I am assured that the Bill already provides for Westminster Parliament to cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for the Scottish Parliament to cover Scotland. That is the consequence of this Bill as it is drafted and the amendments are therefore unnecessary. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that I will check this one more time before we reach Report. I have done so already, as I am concerned to make sure that exactly the points that the hon. Lady has raised are already covered within the Bill. It would not be right for the Scottish Parliament to annul inappropriately the regulations that have been set by the Westminster Parliament.

Caroline Spelman: That is helpful. A lot of people who are not lawyers and who read the Bill will be as confused as both of us were. We shall have to take the word of the highly paid and well-qualified draughtsmen that they have got this absolutely right. It might also be possible, to make that clear as part of the guidance, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: This is a very important clause, because it gives the power to make regulations and orders. My general observation is that we have a great deal of the cart before the horse with this Bill. We are taking a great deal on promise that provisions will be made in regulations—regulations that we have not seen, and on which, in some cases, consultation has not yet taken place. Being a relatively new parliamentarian I find that an astonishing way to go about one's business. So do those people who will be directly affected by this Bill, not least because, for a number of years, they have been promised consultation on these very important matters.
 Also, there are some discrepancies that cause me to raise an eyebrow in relation to the regulation-making powers. Only an order in clause 7 or the regulations in clauses 8 and 10 will be affirmative statutory instruments that will be debated by both Houses of Parliament. However, the regulations referred to in clauses 4, 6, 12 and 18 do not appear to need affirmative statutory instruments. The one that causes my raised eyebrow is the transitional provision, which, unless I am very much mistaken, does not require positive resolution. A number of hon. Members have very considerable concerns about that provisions and how the transitional arrangements up to 2006 will be applied and why some sports should be given preferential treatment under them. The way in which the regulations will subsequently be debated will vary. It is important that we have the chance to debate them, especially as the fruits of consultation that has not yet taken place cannot inform our present argument. We could have approached some of the tricky issues in the Bill differently if the consultation on which those subsequent regulations will be based had taken place. For example, I do not feel at ease about whether we have satisfactorily dealt with the regulation of ISPs, and we have had no sight of the regulations that will affect them. 
 There are some discrepancies in, for example, subsection (2), which allows the appropriate Minister or Secretary of State to regulate differently for different cases or circumstances. I am concerned that that may be discriminatory and will not set a level playing field for those involved in publishing or distributing by electronic means. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who has experience of the printing industry, made the interesting point that our country's printing businesses will be placed at a disadvantage under the Bill in terms of international tendering for magazines and periodicals that contain tobacco advertisements. By comparison, the new internet service industry seems to have been granted a considerable concession under new clause 3. The different industries that compete for our attention and to influence our choices will be treated in a different manner. I fear that the print industry may now be disadvantaged vis a vis those publishing or distributing by electronic means. 
 The Government have failed to provide adequate time for the detail of the Bill, as they have rushed to introduce it so that they can tick the box and say that their pledge to ban tobacco advertising has been achieved in the lifetime of this Parliament. That detail will be important to the effectiveness of the Bill and to the achievement of the Government's aims. As we have had no sight of the regulations, we will not even comment on the likely effectiveness of the secondary legislation until it is all done and dusted and has passed through the Houses of Parliament. Empty-box legislation is an inferior form of legislation, but very much a feature of this, my first Parliament. Disquiet about that is not confined to Opposition Members. Representations from the affected industries lead us to impress on the Government the fact that leaving decisions to regulations as much as possible is not regarded as especially helpful.

Ian Bruce: On first reading the Bill, we assumed that it would be similar to some previous Acts. We have also been in power—and will shortly be in power again—so we acknowledge that it is extremely difficult for Governments to introduce all-encompassing Bills without regulatory powers, as regulations are to introduce in the light of circumstances. However, it is extraordinary that the Minister now tells us that those powers are simply a fallback position for many cases. We have to tell that to our constituents, including retailers of tobacco.
 I do not know whether any member of the Committee has a tobacco factory in his or her constituency, but am sure that everyone in the Room has an interest in the tobacco industry through the House of Commons pension scheme. In one way or another, I suspect that we are all shareholders in the tobacco industry. Damage to business confidence and to the value of shares is not necessarily the result of regulations, because one can usually calculate their effect. I expect that people will be calculating the effect of the Bill and that they will assume that the consumption of tobacco will decrease. That may be an incorrect calculation, but it is certainly what the Government intend. 
 The Government are saying to business that they have additional regulatory powers, but that they do not intend to use them for the moment. However, under other legislation, they have made draft regulations available so that people could work out more or less what to expect; and, once the Bill was enacted, the regulations could be made. Industry will know, because it had seen the draft regulations, what it should be doing. 
 Let us assume that Mr. Bloggs, the retail tobacconist, is thinking about putting a new display in his shop. He is going to revamp it and spend many thousands of pounds on a shopfitting exercise. He rings up his Member of Parliament and says, ``I understand that new point-of-sale regulations are coming along for tobacco. Do I have to keep my cigarette stocks down so that only one packet is showing, or can I display them all?'' Mr. Bloggs has a number of display stands with advertisements. What should he do? He wants the shop's fitting to last for between five and 10 years, and he wants to comply with the regulations. 
 Mr. Blogg's Member of Parliament will not be able to help. He may say, ``It is true that the Government have the power to make regulations that might include hiding all the cigarettes. You may have to keep all the cigarettes in a separate room, and you will have to bring them out in a plain brown wrapper to sell them.'' That is not an extraordinary vision; it is the sort of request that any constituent might make about how the regulations might work. We shall have to tell people that we do not know whether such regulations will be made, and that will cause uncertainty. 
 We believe that there is likely to be an election in May. The convention between the parities, not often spoken about, is that if an election is imminent and the Government are about to make some regulations, they will not publish them without the agreement of the other main political parties. In other words, if they are likely to be politically contentious they will not be rammed through within 28 days—or whatever time lag is appropriate. The gentleman's agreement—or gentlelady's agreement—is that contentious regulations will not be rushed through without agreement. We may not have an election in May, but it is a possibility in May, June or whenever, yet the regulations are not even in draft form and no one knows what effect they might have. 
 It is wrong-headed of the Government, if they are convinced about how they want to regulate tobacco advertising, not to say so. They should be fair to the industry, perhaps even say that, as long as it sticks to a voluntary agreement, they will not make regulations. We are back to voluntary agreements. The Government have obviously listened to us and said, ``We shall do it by voluntary agreement. Unless you keep to it, we shall make regulations.'' That is only fair. 
 One never wants to embarrass the Labour party, but the reason why Bernie Ecclestone rushed to No. 10 Downing street about the threat to tobacco sponsorship and advertising on Formula 1 cars was not that he needed to ensure that tobacco advertising would continue, but that he needed to have certainty about when the ban would happen. When the Government came to power, Bernie Ecclestone was in the middle of trying to sell Formula 1. He could not sell it without knowing what regulations would affect him. Certainty within business about whether a regulation is going to come in is most important. 
 When Governments make statements about the possibility of regulation, stock market valuations can go way down until the regulations are confirmed. We have seen it with the new electricity trading arrangements. When are they going to come in? We have seen electricity shares going up and down. 
 The tobacco industry is supposedly a legal industry. It does not have to have a sword of Damocles hanging over it—a set of regulations that the Government could bring in at any time but are not even willing to divulge to the industry. That is why we need a very clear indication from the Minister about what these regulations will be, what the Government's plans are, which regulations they intend to introduce and when under clause 18 the requirements on sponsorship will be brought in. All that needs to be explained to the Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords, where Labour does not have the massive majority that it has in the House of Commons, will not accept being asked to sign a Bill without being told how much it will cost or what the regulations are. This sort of anonymous legislation, with no commitment from the Government as to when they are going to introduce regulations, if at all, is not satisfactory in a parliamentary democracy.

Peter Luff: I rise to ask a one-word question. Why? What is the rationale for different bits of regulation being subject to different procedure? It is not explained in the very helpful explanatory notes, and of course it is not explained in the Bill itself. I hope that the Minister will explain when she winds up. This clause is a bit of a bad-news, good-news, bad-news story. As my hon. Friends have said, there is too much uncertainty in this Bill. Too much is left to the future. Too much is left to regulation. Indeed, some of the most difficult and complex issues are left to regulation. I am very unhappy about passing a Bill that leaves the complex issue of brand sharing to future regulation. At least the brand sharing order will be a positive order. That is good. There will be a chance to scrutinise it in detail and for the whole House to vote on it. We will not be able to amend it, but there will be a chance for proper scrutiny of a kind.
 It is bad that there is this uncertainty. It is bad that there is so much left to regulation. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, an empty-box Bill with huge areas left to the future. I am tempted to think that this is because the Department found some issues too difficult—too difficult to introduce at all or to introduce in the time; I am not sure which. That is a matter for great regret. I am one of the cynics here. I think that the Government wanted to get this Bill on to the statute book before they had thought it out. They have provided a framework so that they can claim to the electorate that the Bill is on the statute book, whereas in practice they will have done very little to control advertising by the time of the election. The advertising of tobacco products will remain largely uncontrolled and unregulated for a considerable period. Yet so much hangs on these regulations. That is bad. 
 It is good, however, that at least we are positive. I am glad about that. It is good to see three affirmative resolutions—three orders that require the affirmative procedure. I welcome that. Very often the Opposition have to argue, to change things from negative to affirmative. I remember the proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Many of our ``victories'' in Committee were squeezing out of the Government changes from negative to affirmative procedure. I am glad, therefore, that there are four affirmative procedures in place. That is good. Four out of seven are affirmative. 
 That, however, drives me back to this question of why? Why are three negative and four affirmative? I assume that it is because the Government attach greater importance to the latter than to the former—they believe that the latter deal with issues of more complexity or greater importance, or are more fundamental to the Bill, while the former deal with lesser issues. 
 On that rationale, why are advertising at the point of sale under the negative procedure and distributions at nominal amounts, which are covered in clause 8(6), subject to the affirmative procedure? I may be wrong—if so, I will be happy for the Minister to tell me so in her charming way—but I would have thought that advertising at the point of sale was a hugely important issue that should be subject to the affirmative procedure, while distributions at nominal amounts could have been left to the negative procedure without the Opposition making too much fuss. Why are they that way round? 
 I remain a cynic about the Bill, and I have a feeling that the Government needed a few negative procedures to provide a cloak of respectability to allow clause 18—the Bernie Ecclestone memorial clause—to be placed under the negative procedure. That is one of the greatest scandals in the Bill. The Government do not want to give Parliament the opportunity to discuss the matter any more than it has to.

Ian Bruce: Are we being too cynical in believing that, as we approach a general election, the Government want a bare-bones Bill that has not been give the chance to reveal that it does not work? They can say to the electorate, ``We've solved that problem,'' but in a few months' time we will know that they have not.

Peter Luff: That was a summary of my earlier remarks, and I can only agree with my hon. Friend. The Department has said, ``The Bill contains seven order-making powers. We have to make clause 18 negative for political reasons, so let's make another two negative to give it respectability.'' If that is so, the Minister has got it wrong: it would be better for advertising at the point of sale to be positive and distribution at nominal amounts to be negative.
 I am afraid that I am cynical about this, but the Minister is a lady with great persuasive powers, and she may be able to convince me that my cynicism is misplaced. I am grateful that four out of seven procedures are affirmative, but why are the other three negative?

Yvette Cooper: The clause sets out the regulation-making powers and the ways in which they will be treated under the Bill when enacted.
 I should say straight away that we intend, as soon as possible, to introduce regulations on brand sharing, the sponsorship timetable and point-of-sale advertising. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that we intended to introduce regulations on the sponsorship timetable during the passage of the Bill, and we hope to introduce the regulations on point-of-sale advertising and brand sharing as closely in line with that as possible. 
 We do not intend to regulate on new technology, display, nominal distributions or specialist tobacconists. Those powers are to be held in anticipation of loopholes. It is better not to legislate on those matters if we can avoid it, so we shall not introduce regulations at this stage.

Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady has identified the regulations that she does not intend to introduce. Will she have discussions with the appropriate bodies about voluntary agreements on how they will operate, as that would make the introduction of regulations unnecessary?

Yvette Cooper: We shall happily hold discussions with any of the companies involved about how they might operate in order to prevent any need for future regulations on those matters.However, I add a note of caution about the past success of voluntary arrangements. We put the powers in the Bill so that we would not have to rely on voluntary agreements to regulate potential abuses of the Bill. We need the flexibility to respond if problems arise, but we do not currently intend to use those powers. If we need to introduce regulations, we will consult fully at that time.
 Four of the sets of regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure—those on new technology, brand sharing, display and distributions at nominal cost—because new offences will be created in those four areas. Although the offences are already set out, the introduction of any regulations would take account of the effect felt by people involved in those areas. 
 On specialist tobacconists and point-of-sale advertising, regulations will clarify defences rather than setting out new offences and new problems. The sponsorship timetable is simply about setting out a timetable. It is appropriate that the negative procedure is used in those areas because they merely set out detail and clarify matters. We do not intend to use regulatory powers in many of those areas if we can avoid it, but it is appropriate to have flexibility. That is why those areas are covered by regulations rather than in the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: I listened with great interest to the Minister. I hope that those who are listening to our debate and who will read Hansard carefully will have noted that the two-speed process introduced in the regulations is important. I was particularly interested to hear that the specialist tobacconist powers might be held in reserve, giving specialist tobacconists a chance to work out how they can comply with the Bill without excessively burdensome regulations being placed on them. The distinction discussed in the stand part debate, which if I recall correctly might have been curtailed at the beginning of our proceedings, was helpful.
 I draw attention to clause 19, about which I seek clarification. It refers to 
``publishing by any electronic means, for example by means of the internet''. 
The Minister will be aware that I am worried that the approach may, understandably, be more lenient towards the new technology. It is still evolving and blossoming and should not be cut off at an early stage of its development. I remain worried, however, that those who publish printed matter by conventional methods may be discriminated against in comparison with people who publish by electronic means. The clause deals with them together, but in other parts of the Bill they are treated differently. 
 The Minister's new clause 3 provides for publishers of information by electronic means through their websites legitimately to continue if they carry on their business outside the United Kingdom and customers from the UK access their websites. I am not convinced that, under British law, anything could be done about that problem. None the less, those responsible for publishing printed matter by conventional means will be placed at a comparative disadvantage. Both sorts of publishers compete in an international market. The publishing world operates in a global market, as does the internet business. Both tender for business and present information to those who wish to be informed and advised about our buying decisions and strategies. However, conventional publishers in Britain are alone among publishers in European Union member states in being banned from competing in the international market, while some portion of those publications may be distributed in this country. That situation differs from that of internet service providers, who may carry on their business from outside the United Kingdom but whose customers may access it from here. 
 I am worried about that discrepancy. The two groups are lumped together in the clause as if they had equal provision, but the Bill makes a distinction and they do not have equal provision. I would welcome hearing from the Minister that, as part of the preparation for drawing up regulations, she will consult print publishers as well as those of electronic means, so that she may better understand the concerns resulting from the different way in which those two types of publishing will be treated.

Ian Bruce: I want briefly to address some narrow, technical points. It is always the case in this place—because we represent what the Prime Minister called a very conservative body—we assume that because we have always done things in a particular way and used a particular form of words in an Act of Parliament, if it came to a court case and someone claimed that something had been done incorrectly, the courts would assume that any lack of clarity in our legislation could be accepted in the courts. When I complained about the lack of clarity surrounding the question of the appropriate Minister, I was grateful to be told that there was a definition. However, like so many of the definitions in the Bill, it tells one nothing. It states that appropriate Minister means
``in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State''. 
There are 20 or 30 Secretaries of State, and in this Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is describing the Minister to whom I was about to refer in derogatory terms.

Kevin Barron: It was you, actually.

Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
 The Secretary of State is not defined here. It might be the Secretary of State for Health, or even the Prime Minister, who can obviously delegate things. The definition does not tell us to which Secretary of State it refers. On the front of the Bill there is a reference to ``Mr Secretary Milburn'', but nothing else in the Bill shows that it issues from the Department of Health. The Minister may say, rightly, that it is the Government's Bill, but if one wants to define the appropriate Minister, it would be a good idea to say who that Secretary of State is. 
 The next part of the definition refers to the ``Scottish Ministers''. That means that any Minister of the Scottish Parliament can pick the matter up and is an appropriate person to introduce regulations. For the sake of clarity, the definition should be made clearly in the Bill. 
 I revert—although not in any detail, as the matter has already been covered—to the fact that ``advertisement'' is not properly defined. The reason for having definitions in a Bill is to deal with something that has not been made clear in an earlier part of the Bill. In this case, clause 19 refers us to clause 1, but there is no better definition in clause 19 than there was in clause 1. Why do we even have the definition in clause 19? It is a tautology. If the definition in clause 1 is clear, there is no requirement for it in clause 19. Presumably, the draftsmen said, ``Minister, we've got to define advertisement'', so they put in the original draft of the clause what they felt an advertisement meant. Then they found themselves getting into a mess, so they simply said: 
```tobacco advertisement' and `tobacco product' have the meaning given in section 1''. 
As clause 1 does not contain a clear meaning of those terms, that is a tautology and shows that the Bill is in a mess. 
 I am glad that the final part of this discussion includes the difficulties that the Minister will face in relation to electronic publishing. Publishing by electronic means is included in the Bill, but it is strange that, although we refer to internet service providers and web pages, the definition, which includes all kinds of related things, does not include other forms of electronic publishing that look like a web site or an ISP. ISPs have already written to me, and no doubt they will come to speak to the Minister after the Bill has gone through the House. They want ISP to be defined simply as somebody who transmits things and is not a publisher. They want to be excluded from that definition. 
 Under previous telecommunications Acts, the telephone company that transmitted a dirty phone call or a slander over the telephone was not liable: it was simply a carrier and not responsible for the content. Yet, without a clear definition, people can be caught by the provisions. ISPs have received some comfort from the Minister saying, ``It's not you, if you didn't know anything about it''. However, ISPs and their role are not properly defined in the Bill, and nor is it clear who may be caught as an ISP. In many ways, I am an internet service provider, because I have a web page. If somebody dials into my web page, which is run for me by another company, I can personally be said to be an ISP. The Labour party and the Conservative party are ISPs by some definitions. 
 Clause 19 contains a set of definitions that are tautologous. The clause does not clarify which Minister is involved, nor does it give us a proper definition of the electronic side that would be helpful to lawyers and courts in future. I hope that the Minister can help the Committee on those issues.

Yvette Cooper: I shall try to respond to the points that have been raised.
 The hon. Member for Meriden was concerned that the clause and the Bill treated print publishers and electronic publishers differently. They are treated differently in a couple of respects, although the broad aim of the Bill is to be neutral with regard to the different media. First, they have a different defence for electronic means of transmission—that they were unaware of what was being published. Secondly, we have taken a power in regulations to cope with changes in technology, not because we intend to treat electronic media differently from print media, but simply to anticipate future changes in technology. 
 The hon. Lady raised the issue of print for a foreign market. I said in replying to that debate that I would consider that issue in time for Report. 
 The hon. Member for South Dorset, as I had expected, again asked about the definition of advertisement and expressed his concern about the definition of a web page. I have set out the Government's position on those matters. The words have the ordinary meaning that people attach to them. Sometimes it can be counter-productive to attempt to define too narrowly in legislation what we mean, word for word, in every case. In doing so, we would exclude more than was intended simply because a particular example had not been anticipated. In that regard, I think that the Bill strikes the right balance. 
 Finally, on the question of to which Secretary of State or Minister the clause refers, I should point out that it is standard practice to refer to the Secretary of State in that way in legislation. However, in practice it is the Secretary of State for Health to whom reference is made, because it is his responsibility to take the lead on tobacco products. The hon. Gentleman has expressed anxiety on many occasions about legislation that crosses, and which has implications for, several Government Departments, and I have told him that that, unfortunately, is the way that the world works. Legislation often does not fit into single departmental boxes, but that should cause no problems because we on the Government Benches recognise that it is important that Departments should work together, and are trying to ensure that they do so. 
 As I have said, it is common practice for a Bill not to define a particular Secretary of State, but in this case it is the Secretary of State for Health to whom reference is made.

Ian Bruce: I do not want to cause too much discomfort, although we on the Opposition Benches often play games by trying to get Secretaries of State to give different answers to the same question. However, it must be said that the Bill would be improved by a clearer definition. Perhaps a phrase such as ``the Minister who is responsible for tobacco products'' could be used. The clause ought not to refer merely to ``the Secretary of State'', given that there is no such title in British governance.

Yvette Cooper: I repeat that such a reference is standard practice in legislation, and it is clear that ``the Secretary of State'' means the Secretary of State with responsibility for this policy area. The clause is perfectly adequate, therefore, and I ask the Committee to accept it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Commencement, short title and extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: In respect of clause 17, the Minister referred to the speed at which different sets of regulations might come into effect—a point that relates to the question of whether the Bill will be enacted on the day appointed by the appropriate Minister. Can the Minister assure me that in enforcing the legislation, enough time will be allowed for specialist tobacconists, newsagents and internet service providers to comply with it and make the appropriate changes? She perhaps anticipated my pleading on behalf of smaller companies that do not have the resources to make such changes easily. I am thinking in particular of small newsagents, many of which have fascia signs that have been supplied by tobacco manufacturers. It might not immediately occur to them that they need to replace such signs, which is quite an expensive process. The different rates at which the regulations come into force is therefore important.
 Can the Minister give some idea of the time scale involved? I understand that, in a way, the delayed regulations depend on a promise of not abusing the system, so perhaps no precise time scale can be given. None the less, I seek an assurance that every effort will be made to help small businesses with the changes that must be made in good faith to comply with the Bill.

Ian Bruce: As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, we have not defined whether existing hoardings, which have been published, can result in a prosecution because they are still on display. That is an important point that we have not previously discussed. One could say that every time someone looks at a hoarding, it is being published, and that would be an offence. If the advertisement is already on a hoarding, is there a requirement for it to be removed, and under which section of the Bill would that happen? If the Minister believes that that will happen, can she indicate when that will take place?

Yvette Cooper: I shall set out our intentions. The appointed date for the Bill to come into force would be two months after Royal Assent, but a further three months will be allowed for advertising in retail outlets, in in-pack promotion schemes that entail coupons being inserted in a pack or forming part of a pack, and for direct marketing contracts that were set up before 8 October 1999. We have set out that provision to enable small businesses in particular to have time to comply with the legislation without excessive burdens being placed on them.
 However, I should also say that our intentions have been clear for a long time. We are broadly implementing the European directive, which has been publicly available for a considerable time. Small businesses and large businesses alike know our intentions. 
 The hon. Member for South Dorset raised a specific question about an old advertisement or hoarding that is still up. If someone allowed that advertisement to be in place and was responsible in some sense for allowing it to remain in place by, for example, having it on his or her property or premises, he or she would effectively be publishing it, or at least assisting with its publication. It would be bizarre to allow all the advertisements that are currently up to be permitted under the legislation simply because no one had got round to taking them down. That would be a major loophole if we allowed it to happen.

Ian Bruce: It has just occurred to me that I cannot see under which section of the Bill such a person would be prosecuted. As the Minister said, it would be bizarre to ban new advertisements while retaining others. One can imagine that as the date approaches, the tobacco companies will have balloons in the trees. In Burnley, there is a ``Vote Ian Bruce'' sticker up in a tree; I do not know how it got up there, but there is no way to get it down. I am probably breaking the law because legislation specifies that posters must be removed within a particular time after an election.
 With loopholes in mind, may I ask where the Bill prohibits such behaviour? I am not sure how a person not in the tobacco trade who continues to show a poster would be caught.

Yvette Cooper: The Bill provides for someone to be currently responsible for publishing or bringing to the attention of the public. If that person does not take the advertisement down, he or she is therefore liable. If it were not in his or her power to take the advertisement down because, for example, it was stuck in a tree, he or she would have a defence.

Peter Luff: That is a fascinating point. What about old enamel signs outside antique shops? Are there any brands advertised by old enamel signs or by mirrors in gentlemen's lavatories that would be affected? Are there any old brands of antique interest, that are not there to promote the brand, but which are still up, that will be caught by this? If the brand was not current, would there be a problem?

Yvette Cooper: The question would be whether something was being published in the course of a business. An old curio that was privately owned clearly would not be covered by the Act. However, if something was being distributed, published or used currently, and had either the purpose or the effect of promoting a tobacco product today, it would, no matter how long ago it had actually been manufactured, be covered. Obviously there is no intention to ban historic antiques.

Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady did say published or distributed today, but by someone in business for tobacco. I think that she should include those words.

Yvette Cooper: We are talking about what is done in the course of the business, so the hon. Gentleman would certainly not be prosecuted for continuing to wear the Silk Cut jacket that he clearly acquired some considerable time ago.
 The hon. Member for Meriden raised a point about the timetable for regulations. We will, of course, give considerable time for the consultation. We have not yet set out the timetable for implementing the regulations, but will do so in the same way in which we provided appropriate time scales for introducing some of the provisions for advertising and retail outlets, and timetabling provisions in the original European directive around brandsharing and other areas. There is no intention to place unnecessary burdens on business, and we obviously aim to introduce the ban in the most effective way. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Displays

``(1) A person who in the course of a business displays tobacco products or causes them to be displayed in a place or on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale is guilty of an offence if the display does not comply with such requirements (if any) as may be specified by the appropriate Minister in regulations. 
 (2) It is not an offence under subsection (1) for a person who does not carry on business in the United Kingdom to display or cause to be displayed tobacco products or their prices by means of a website which is accessed in the United Kingdom. 
 (3) The regulations may, in particular, provide for the meaning of ``place'' in subsection (1). 
 (4) The regulations must make provision for a display which also amounts to an advertisement to be treated for the purpose of offences under this Act— 
 (a) as an advertisement and not as a display, or 
 (b) as a display and not as an advertisement.''—[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1 - Review of effect of this act

``(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a reputable and appropriately qualified body to carry out a rolling study of the effects of this Act on— 
 (a) the prevalence of smoking in the United Kingdom population, with particular reference to the uptake of smoking by persons under the age of 18; and 
 (b) the effect of this Act on market shares of different participants in the tobacco market. 
 (2) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an annual report of the findings of the study commissioned in accordance with (1) above to be presented to the Health Select Committee of the House of Commons for evaluation.''. —[Mrs. Spelman.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Irene Adams: With this we will consider new clause 2—Tobacco promotion regulatory authority.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Member for Rother Valley may find that there is an overlap between some of the aims that I have set out to achieve in new clause 1 and some of what he sets out to achieve in new clause 2, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Obviously the legislation has imposed some significant restrictions on the way in which legitimate business has been carried out in this country for a long time.
 The justification given for the ban on tobacco advertising is the reduction in the prevalence of smoking, and the Government have set a target of reducing that by 2.5 per cent. It is important that we test the proposition properly and require the Government to evaluate the effect of what they are doing. Parliament should head the scrutiny of the legislation. 
 The UK has taken a significant unilateral decision as part of a significant trading block to ban tobacco advertising for public health reasons in order to meet the target of a 2.5 per cent. reduction in smoking prevalence. We owe it to those who will have to comply with the ban on advertising to demonstrate whether the target has been achieved because of the investment that they will have to make. 
 Our purpose will be made clear by this debate on our reasoned amendment. We share the Government's aim of reducing smoking prevalence, but the relatively modest target of reducing prevalence by 2.5 per cent. will be difficult to achieve unless we do something far more effective about the volume of illegal tobacco coming in to this country, which we see as fuelling the incidence of smoking. 
 It is quite reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to commission a qualified body to carry out a rolling study of the effect of the Bill. There is little difference between the hon. Member for Rother Valley and me on the concept of a qualified authority. I have read the Health Committee Report with care, and I understand his reasons for wanting a body to be introduced called the tobacco promotion regulatory authority. The Health Committee's report promoted such a body, and the Bill introduces new instruments that will carry out the role for which the Health Committee envisaged a tobacco regulatory authority. 
 It is a semantic difference, but under my new clause the Secretary of State would select a reputable and appropriately qualified body. Such a body might already be in existence. I am no great fan of setting up quangos and authorities all over the place, we have enough of them--I wonder about the effectiveness of some of them sometimes. An existing authority may be able to perform this role for the Secretary of State. 
 Commercial regulation is outside the sphere of my brief on health, so I am not sufficiently conversant with the constraints on the Advertising Standards Authority, for example. Existing regulatory authorities and bodies may be perfectly well-qualified—

Peter Luff: A university.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend mentions a university. The Secretary of State often commissions a university to carry out such a report. It is possible within existing structures to charge a body with the responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the Bill. We owe it to those who will be affected by it. It would also inform the public about the success or our legislative efforts in reducing smoking prevalence, and how much that is attributable to the ban on tobacco advertising.

Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will remember that the Prime Minister made a big thing about producing an annual report on Government measures. We saw it in one format one year, and then the format was changed completely so we could not follow it the second year. Her clause would merely put into statutory form what the Government promised us with all that spin when they first came into power. They said that they would report back on the measures that they had taken and on the effects that they had had.

Caroline Spelman: I recall that the first glossy annual report did not exactly sell like hot cakes at Tesco. I am not in favour of glossy reports, but I am very much in favour of an effective report that has a statutory basis to it, so that we can properly evaluate whether or not the Bill has been successful in meeting the Government's target of reducing smoking prevalence by 2.5 per cent. The target does not appear in the Bill. The rationale for this measure would not be apparent to any lay person reading the Bill, who would not make that connection. It is important to make that connection, and for the Government to establish just how effective or not this ban on tobacco advertising has been, and to put that information in the public domain.

Kevin Barron: May I ask for guidance, Mrs. Adams. We are debating these clauses, but the clock is ticking and we have only 25 minutes left of this sitting. I have been invited by the hon. Member for Meriden to comment on her clause, which I am quite prepared to do. Clearly, I have to move my new clause formally, but I do not know which to deal with first.

Irene Adams: You do not have to move your new clause at this stage.

Kevin Barron: Thank you, Mrs. Adams. I shall comment on the other new clause first and then move on to mine. The Committee is running out of time, so I may table it again, so that the House can consider it in more detail on Report next Tuesday.
 The hon. Members for Meriden and for Mid-Worcestershire may be surprised to hear me say that new clause 1 has some merit. Two important issues arise from clause 1: what happens to under-18 smokers, and what the impact of clause 1(b) on market share will be. We know that clause 1(b) has been the tobacco industry's defence for years—that advertising and promotion are simply about market share and brand switches. If the market did not move when advertising and promotion were banned in this country, we would know that the industry was right for all these years—that people keep smoking the same cigarettes because they want to, not because they have been enticed by advertising and promotion to switch to another brand. 
 Under-18 smoking is an important issue. It would be good to examine the problem and assess the impact of the ban on advertising and promotion. I agree with the hon. Lady that the Health Committee would be the most appropriate body to conduct such a study. I referred earlier to the Health Committee's evidence on the health risks of smoking, which was published in its report last year. Both written and oral evidence of the incidence of under-age smoking was examined carefully. It showed that advertising designed to encourage people over 18 to switch cigarettes had no effect whatever on young people's smoking habits. The Health Committee put various questions to the advertising agencies giving evidence. 
 The hon. Member for South Dorset said in his filibuster on integration [Hon. Members: ``Oh''.] I shall point out that his speech was not well-focused on clause 19, and leave it at that. Commenting on raising issues with the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman said that if people keep asking the same questions, they receive different answers. He is absolutely right. Advertising agencies were giving evidence about how they pitched their adverts to different age groups and claimed that they affected only adults, not children. I thought that that was a fascinating example of a Select Committee really doing its job. 
 I shall refer to the late Member for Preston, Audrey Wise. Irrespective of whether we agree with her politics, few could deny that she was assiduous in her Committee work. I recall sitting with Audrey on the Committee considering the Food Standards Bill in 1999. Whenever she elicited evidence from witnesses she would always get to the heart of the matter. I have the report of the evidence taken by that Committee. Audrey Wise took evidence from a Mr. Paul Bainsfair. Please do not ask me to explain in detail, but he was the chairman of TBWA GCT Simons Palmer Ltd. On page 318 of the report, she asked questions about the targeting of young adults. She referred to some written evidence that had been given to the Committee by the company and Mr. Bainsfair, and said: 
 ``The client is Rothmans and the target `Primary: 18-24 males'. I should just like to know what you think characterises an 18-year-old male, their aspirations and things that appeal to them which would not also appeal to 14 and 15-year-old males?'' 
Crucially, under the voluntary code, tobacco advertising was not supposed to be aimed at people aged between 12 and 15. The age of 18 is used in new clause 1 because advertisers are not supposed to target below that age. It would seem relevant for a study to consider the effect of an advertising ban on people below the age of 18. 
 Mr. Bainsfair said, when he was answering questions in relation to what he called the piece of paper that had been given to the Committee: 
 ``It is a fact that Marlboro is a brand which is smoked by younger men; they tend to be more upscale.'' 
The then hon. Member for Preston said: 
 ``Yes, I understand that but what I am asking is how you gear the advertising to be attractive at 18, which is your target beginning and not include things which would also appeal to 14 and 15-year-olds.'' 
He replied: 
 ``I shall try to answer your question, although...you do not really fully understand the way we work'', 
to which Audrey Wise admitted: 
 ``I am sure I do not, or what motivates you.'' 
Mr. Bainsfair then went into a rather long answer, saying: 
 ``The advertising we are trying to develop, and remember that we have to stick very much within the bounds of the code which prevents us anyway doing anything which might be seen to be deliberately attractive to children—not that we would want to—means that it is pretty unlikely that the kind of advertising we come up with would particularly appeal to a 15-year-old.'' 
The debate carries on for several columns—I emphasise its relevance to new clause 1(1)(a)—and Audrey Wise says: 
 ``All I am asking, since you are expert communicators, is what steps you take to make your adverts attractive to young males 18 and up and to not have them attractive to males of 14 and 15.'' 
Mr. Bainsfair replied: 
 ``What I have tried to explain is that there is a very detailed code to which we have to submit all our ideas to make sure that we are not straying into an area which could be seen to do the very thing you are suggesting we might accidentally do.'' 
He was then challenged by Audrey Wise, who said: 
 ``So you are supposed not to do it. What I am asking is how you carry out that remit, that is all.'' 
Mr. Bainsfair answered: 
 ``I do not quite understand your question. We are aiming at 18 to 24-year-olds.'' 
The exchange went on for another column.

David Taylor: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians? It notes that the real issue is the management of nicotine addiction. One would infer that the companies concerned are trying to establish nicotine addiction at an early age. In the most recent surveys, the data of which were compiled in 1998, as high a proportion of 15-year-olds as 30 per cent. regularly smokes.

Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend is right. I do not want to go down that avenue now, although it may be relevant to new clause 2. The regulatory authority was requested by the Royal College of Physicians in that study. It is an excellent study, showing people how addictive nicotine is, how it is delivered in different ways to people in society and the effect of the delivery.
 Let me return to the evidence taken by the Select Committee. It shows how the Committee chased round the houses and attempted to find out why advertising would affect only the 18 to 24 age group, and whether we could depend on the voluntary code to ensure that the same advertising did not affect people below the age of 18. Audrey Wise asked someone who was paid by a tobacco company to run its advertising how a distinction could be made under the voluntary code between someone who was under 18, or under 15, and an 18 to 24-year-old. She said: 
 ``So you are supposed not to do it. What I am asking is how you carry out that remit, that is all.'' 
The witness replied: 
 ``I do not quite understand your question. We are aiming at 18 to 24-year-olds.'' 
Audrey Wise went on: 
 ``The question is how you engage aspirations in the first place and stay within the CAP''. 
She was referring to the code of advertising practice. All these matters are examined under the voluntary code, which the Bill would abolish. She went on: 
``I thought that adverts had not to be aspirational. How do you distinguish between the aspirations of the bottom end of your adult smokers and the young teenager? There must be something you do, some sorts of things you do or refrain from doing in order to keep within the CAP. I am just asking you to explain.'' 
The proceedings continued. The witness could not explain. Audrey Wise then said: 
 ``What guides your judgement? ...You have rock, cult, bikes, cars as sorts of things.'' 
We have all seen the images used in tobacco advertising over the years by Rothmans and many others. She went on: 
 ``Fourteen and 15-year-old males seem to me to be just as interested as 18-year-olds. How do your adverts differ?'' 
The whole matter shows how parliamentarians' expertise can be used to examine reports and to take evidence on them. After about three columns, Mr. Bainsfair eventually made an admission. He said: 
 ``Perhaps if I say that it is common sense that there is going to be an overlap. Some 15-year-olds are going to be more sophisticated than others. It is impossible to say that something which appeals to an 18-year-old will not appeal to a 15-year-old. If that is what you are getting at, obviously you are right.'' 
That has been the argument of people concerned about the health of young people and cigarettes for decades. It is nonsense to claim that certain advertising is for a set age group, whether or not it includes motorbikes. I do not have a problem with new clause 1 being added to the Bill, but we will hear what the Minister has to say about it. On new clause 1(a), it will be interesting to monitor the prevalence of smoking in the 11 to 15 age group. The vast majority of people start smoking between the ages of 11 and 15. It will be interesting to see what happens when advertising that is supposedly not aimed at them is taken out of our culture.

Caroline Spelman: I do not think that we are going to hear from the Minister. The discussions suggest that, because of the forthcoming Division in the House, my new clause will have to be decided quickly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that there will be an opportunity to consider his new clause on Report. The matters are important and I interrupt only to remind him that there may not be time for us to hear the Government's reply.

Kevin Barron: I realise that, if I were to sit down now, I could table new clause 2 again on Report. As I would be interested to hear the Minister talk about the new clause, I will do just that.

Yvette Cooper: As this is probably the last time that I will speak in this Committee, may I thank you, Mrs. Adams and, through you, Mr. Malins for your chairmanship of the Committee? It has been good humoured and our discussions have progressed well.

Caroline Spelman: As there may be no other opportunity to intervene, I want to thank you, Mrs. Adams and, through you, Mr. Malins for the courteous way in which you have regulated our proceedings. The Committee has also conducted itself courteously most of the time.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the fact that, although the Opposition voted against Second Reading, they have tabled many constructive amendments and accepted many of the principles behind the Bill. That was helpful to our discussions.
 I shall confine my comments to new clause 1, because I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley does not intend to press new clause 2 now. 
 I have considerable sympathy with the aims of new clause 1. It is essential to have effective independent evaluation of the impact of the advertising ban and that information must be publicly available. The issue of market share is interesting, but the critical issue concerns the prevalence of smoking in the United Kingdom. 
 We are keen to have proper and effective evaluation of the legislation, but it would be a mistake to set out in the Bill the specific requirements for research. For example, it is not clear that the under-18 age group is the right one. We may want to consider the under-16s and the 16 to 19 age group. 
 Subsection (2) of the new clause states that there should be an annual report, but if that requirement were in the Bill, it might become burdensome after 10 years; we might have conclusive results during that period. We need flexibility not simply to respond to the ban and to ensure that the right sort of research is taking place, but to enable us to respond to new needs for research in other areas as they arise. 
 I confirm that issues concerning research and evaluation and the work of the Health Development Agency will be considered by the Department. It is important to maintain flexibility in the way in which research is commissioned, but our intention is to ensure that there is proper public evaluation of the impact of the Bill. We are keen to see the Bill on the statute book and to evaluate its effect in the light of the considerable health consequences of smoking and the impact of advertising not only on new smokers, but on those who want to give up. Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up smoking. It is an important part of our health policy to provide support and encouragement for those who want to give up and to break the addiction to a deadly product. 
 I ask the Committee to reject new clause 1 and look forward to further consideration of the Bill on Report.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister's comments are encouraging and I am pleased that the Government want to evaluate the Bill in a similar way to that suggested in the new clause. I may return to the matter on Report with some modifications in line with the objectives that we want to achieve.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Irene Adams: Order. I thank the Committee for behaving so well. I am disappointed that we did not have a vote, because I was interested to see if Little Ben would be allowed to vote. I thank hon. Members for their attendance and kind words.
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at six minutes to Five o'clock.